Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

(1) http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ciple.html (An on-screen photo of part of this 11 Dec blog post has just been forwarded to Mark Edon - where Bob Sorensen reproduces part of a Facebook comment on his 'The Question Evolution Project' page which questioned one of his recent online 'Dawkins-themed meme' claims. The meme is reproduced in this blog post - it reads "he finds creation, global flood, resurrection to be absurd yet believes everything came from nothing". There is a black label superimposed upon the questioning post, reading 'Ashley Haworth-Roberts likes this' and Bob then accuses me of liking "every absurd, angry, hateful comment". That is not true. Yes, I have 'liked' many Facebook comments challenging Bob's own combative assertions, including (possibly I don't remember for certain) the post shown. That is not illegal. But other posts I have not liked.) Note that NO comments are allowed under postings at Stormbringer's Thunder - even if those postings are libellous or untrue. I have never posted on Bob's Facebook page and don't intend to start.

(3) The post on this community forum (open to all) flagged to Bob read:"Bob Sorensen BANNED a 'Dawkins disciple', according to his 'The Question Evolution Project'. And then posted THIS: http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ciple.htmlConclusion? The man is a COWARD.Sorensen is also annoyed because I have liked some of the Facebook comments challenging his anti-science arguments (those I saw before they got hidden)."

(4) I then added another short post in the same BCSE thread (I accidentally typed 'note' instead of 'not' - now corrected):"I've just stalked Bob again - sent a short email flagging his post and then this thread (copied to Mark Edon only). I do not automatically vote for every post that I see challenging Bob on Facebook - just the vast majority (because he is normally so defensive and accusatory towards them)".

(5) Today - well on 12 December in fact but I only saw it today - our friend has posted THIS blog about me (I have photographed it and forwarded to Mark Edon for information):http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ssion.htmlMr Sorensen calls me the following: 'atheist troll', 'exceptionally narcissistic and hate-filled child', 'bully', 'frustrated control freak'. He also claims to have caught me in 'some lies' - but forgets to tell what the world what they are

(6) THIS thread. Reporting on events.

(7) My further email to Bob, copied to Mark Edon only, flagging this thread and stating:"Mark EdonThese three photos (3 emails because O2 can't cope well with photo attachments) relate to my new community forum post HERE: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&p=43005#p43005I am forwarding the photos - of a libellous blog post about me by a YEC - for information ONLY.Ashley Haworth-Roberts"

Having just read the small print of today's blog post, I see he's accusing me of 'lying' because I said he posts 'anti-science arguments'. Yet at the top of his Piltdown Superman blog page http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/ he writes "We are hit with dubious evidence for the "fact" of evolution. Contrary evidence is suppressed." Judge for yourselves.

He also accuses me of 'conflating' evolution with science. I do no such thing. Evolution is PART of science, it is not the WHOLE of science and I have never suggested otherwise.

It is YECs who misrepresent or alter the definition or meaning of science. They want evolution and millions of years REMOVED, and every piece of evidence re-interpreted to conform to the Bible (or ignored). I may be generalising slightly, but in essence when a YEC says he or she 'loves' science they really mean 'knowledge'. By which they claimed revelation from the Bible, plus any present-day observations that don't contradict the Bible, ONLY. That is NOT science, it is 'creation science' ie apologetics and science-undermining ideology.

Note ALSO that when he posted his blog post of 12 Dec Bob HAD read my comment on this forum "I do not automatically vote for every post that I see challenging Bob on Facebook - just the vast majority (because he is normally so defensive and accusatory towards them)". He should therefore note that his recent comment on his Facebook page, still shown on the 11 Dec blog post, that I like "every absurd, angry, hateful comment" posted by others there is plain WRONG.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:23 am, edited 4 times in total.

If Bob - who has been told about this thread by email - wishes to discuss anything with me, I suggest that he does so DIRECTLY. Either in THIS thread or by private EMAIL.

Instead of posting near-hysterical and libellous blogs about me, where there is NO right of reply.

Alternatively, as it is nearly Christmas, perhaps a truce instead? After all, he has indicated that he wants nothing to do with me and doesn't want to debate (despite criticising Bill Nye for the same thing). And he considers me 'liking' various Facebook postings on his page as some sort of 'trolling' or 'spamming' despite the fact that I am saying nothing there.

It is interesting to note that Mr Sorensen does not divulge on his blog post dated 12 Dec exactly WHERE my comments can be read. One might conclude that he does NOT want those who like his blog posts ever to discover the BCSE Community Forum.

I have just done a Google search typing "Sorensen is also annoyed" - and the BCSE community forum thread in question was the third item which came up on my screen.

US blogger Cowboy Bob Sorensen - who habitually calls any people who challenge his pronouncements 'atheist trolls' or Darwinist 'stormtroopers' - is trying to slam your recent blog posts (which more or less agreed with points that I have made direct to AiG about the Lucy 'knuckle-walking gorilla' fraud at their Creation Museum - even if the species did have wrists which may have allowed her to crawl or knuckle-walk when in the trees: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/12 ... fours.html)!He's basically flagging that recent AiG late October hatchet job - which you have already responded to at http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/10/29 ... /#comments! Not that details like that are likely to bother Bob when he sees your response. Bob put the 'prop' into naked propaganda.(AiG did have another 'go' at defending their presentation at the Creation Museum more recently, and their further article IGNORED your initial response. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-11172012 - see item 1.)Bob is basically flagging the FIRST AiG article, trying to torpedo your arguments, and saying how wonderful it is. He accuses you of 'ignorance' but - from reading his past blogs - does not appear knowledgeable of biology or evolutionary theory. Just 'exceptionally biased'.

"In their 24 October article about ‘Lucy’ AiG boasted as follows re THIS scientific paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10746723“This particular study is one of several plainly referenced in the Creation Museum’s Lucy exhibit”.

But I’d like to bet my life savings that THIS more recent paper, which reached a contrary conclusion regarding its wrist, is NOT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732797/‘Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor.’"

Which is worse - a bit of 'spin' or a farrago of biased and unsupported allegations? There's only one way to find out! FIGHT.http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/12 ... -spin.htmlIt is clear that Bob has no way of knowing whether Mr Hunter - who does discuss science in a rational way - is correct or wide of the mark. But he simply assumes that he is on the ball and has exposed some dodgy or questionable 'evolutionist' damage limitation exercises and that in reality new discoveries about genes - such as the 'unique genes' possessed by a species of unicellular algae - undermine the evolutionary paradigm...I've yet to see Bob properly discussing or critiquing the contents of the YEC articles he flags. He either posts propaganda or just says, in effect, "here it is - enjoy, and then watch those evolutionists squirm" or some such.

"In their 24 October article about ‘Lucy’ AiG boasted as follows re THIS scientific paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10746723“This particular study is one of several plainly referenced in the Creation Museum’s Lucy exhibit”.

But I’d like to bet my life savings that THIS more recent paper, which reached a contrary conclusion regarding its wrist, is NOT: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732797/‘Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor.’"

Re my preceding comment, quoted above, see also Adam's comment under this: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/12/07 ... y-factoid/"The first paper comes from Washington Department, which were in a long standing row over whether or not Lucy knuckle walked with my university. Aside from the large body of work suggesting they did not knuckle walk (such as the second paper your cited) there is a fundamental flaw with the original work by Washington: they were using an incomplete cast for one analysis and the other analysis did not show what they thought it showed.“Richmond & Strait (2000) claim to have found morphometric evidence of retention of derived knuckle-walking features in the distal radius of Au. afarensis AL 288-1 [aka Lucy] and Au. anamensis radius KNM-ER 20419. However, [they] made their measurements on a cast of KNM-ER 20419 without making allowance for a missing styloid process, and their headline canonical variates plot shows that the distal radial morphology of AL 288-1 lies within the overlap between the ranges of Gorilla and Pongo [the latter being what we think Lucy was most like]”Crompton, R. H., Vereecke, E. E. and Thorpe, S. K. S. (2008), Locomotion and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully modern hominins, with special reference to the last common panin/hominin ancestor. Journal of Anatomy, 212: 501–543"

Lies and libel of the very worst order. And I cannot find these comments on Bob's facebook page - suggesting he has deleted them all and banned Ian for, allegedly, 'asking questions he doesn't want answers to'.

Young Earth Creationism - lies, arrogance and self-delusion (though some YECs are more polite than this one).